GENIRE-L Archives

Archiver > GENIRE > 2009-09 > 1253722812


From: buster <>
Subject: Re: Statute Law Revision Bill, 2009
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 09:20:12 -0700 (PDT)
References: <b422912f-4e14-47d5-8ae7-6b753a2b069c@d23g2000vbm.googlegroups.com><Uputm.30131$j7.493241@news.indigo.ie>


On Sep 20, 2:22 pm, Sean J Murphy <> wrote:
> Michael Merrigan wrote:
> > A Chairde,
>
> > Many references to families, arms and estates etc contained in the
> > following Bill, which will be debated this week in the Oireachtas
> > (Irish Parliament), may be of interest.
>
> > Statute Law Revision Bill, 2009
>
> >http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2009/3309/b3309d.pdf
>
> What an interesting load of old Anglo-Irish legislative rubbish being
> thrown out. Sorting through the skip I notice things like the following:
>
> '1542 (34 & 35 Hen. 8) c. 40P Elisabeth Burgh’s children: deeming them
> illegitimate
> 1542 (34 & 35 Hen. 8) c. 43P Lady Parr’s children: deeming them
> illegitimate
> 1545 (37 Hen. 8) c. 30P Legitimation of Sir Ralph Sadler’s children'
>
> No doubt the Attorney General has advised that the repeal of these
> private acts will not affect the succession rights of any living
> descendants.
>
> And perhaps desire not to worsen the Irish heraldic crisis lies behind
> retention of acts such as the following:
>
> '1745 (19 Geo. 2) c. 2P Enabling Sir Wyndham Knatchbull and his
> heirs male to take the surname and arms of Wyndham, pursuant to the will
> of Thomas Lord Wyndham
> 1748 (22 Geo. 2) c. 12P Enabling Charles and Frances, his
> wife, Fitz Roy to take additional surname and bear the arms of Scudamore'
>
> Finally, could the repeal of the following act in any way affect any of
> those Ormonde Butler 'feudal titles' sold in recent years:
>
> '1695 (7 Will. 3) c. 1P Vesting certain manors, lands, and tenements
> belonging to James, Duke of Ormond, in Ireland, in trustees to be sold,
> and enabling the said Duke to make leases for raising money to discharge
> the debts and incumbrances of his grand-father the late Duke of Ormond,
> charged on his estate in Ireland, and likewise for raising portions for
> the younger daughters, which the said Duke shall 15 happen to have, and
> securing the jointure of the present Dutchess'
>
> Sean Murphy

Sale of Irish Manors
Can one assume that this legislation recognized that there existed
"certain manors" posessed by James Duke of Ormond, that could
legitimately be sold? If that if that is the case, one may argue that
minor Irish Feudal Baronies, often appended to Manors, and taking
their names, could also be sold at that time in the 17th century- long
after 1662.
Buster Grantham.



This thread: